Pugh v. Tidewater Power Co.
| Decision Date | 06 May 1953 |
| Docket Number | No. 599,599 |
| Citation | 237 N.C. 693,75 S.E.2d 766 |
| Court | North Carolina Supreme Court |
| Parties | PUGH, v. TIDEWATER POWER CO., et al. |
Robert E. Calder, Wilmington, for plaintiff, appellant.
Poisson, Campbell & Marshall, Wilmington, A. Y. Arledge and Ernest S. Delaney, Jr., Raleigh, for defendants, appellees.
We take it for granted without so adjudging for the purpose of this particular appeal that the Tidewater Power Company was charged with notice that children were in the habit of flying kites in the vicinity of the high voltage wires by the mere circumstance that the observable remnants of a kite were hanging on the wires during several weeks next preceding the tragedy. We are nevertheless constrained to affirm the compulsory nonsuit. It is a matter of common knowledge that children ordinarily use strings, which are non-conductors of electricity, in flying kites. Watral's Adm'r v. Appalachian Power Co., 273 KY. 25, 115 S.W.2d 372; Kedziora v. Washington Water Power Co., 193 Wash. 51, 74 P.2d 898. The evidence at the trial did not disclose any facts sufficient to charge the Tidewater Power Company with notice that a metal wire might be put to such a use. In consequence, the tragedy was not within the reasonable anticipation of the Tidewater Power Company. Stanley v. Town of Smithfield, 211 N.C. 386, 190 S.E. 207; Parker v. Charlotte Electric R. Co., 169 N. C. 68, 85 S.E. 33; Caraglio v. Frontier Power Co., 10 Cir., 192 F.2d 175; Croxton v. Duke Power Co., 4 Cir., 181 F.2d 306; Garrett v. Arkansas Power & Light Co., 218 Ark. 575, 237 S.W.2d 895; Callaway v. Central Georgia Power Co., 43 Ga.App. 820, 160 S.E. 703; Dilley v. Iowa Public Service Co., 210 Iowa 1332, 227 N.W. 173; Fredericks' Adm'r v. Kentucky Utilities Co., 276 Ky. 13, 122 S.W.2d 1000; Watral's Adm'r v. Appalachian Power Co., supra; Kelley v. Texas Utilities Co., Tex.Civ.App., 115 S.W.2d 1233; Kedziora v. Washington Water Power Co., supra; 18 Am.Jur., Electricity, section 53; 29 C.J.S., Electricity, § 42.
The cases invoked by the plaintiff, to wit, Benton v. Public-Service Corporation, 165 N.C. 354, 81 S.F. 448, and Ferrell v. Dixie Cotton Mills, 157 N.C. 528, 73 S.E. 142, 37 L.R.A.,N.S., 64, are distinguishable.
Affirmed.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Foote v. Scott-New Madrid-Mississippi Elec. Co-op.
...recovery has been denied as a matter of law. Watral's Adm'r. v. Appalachian Power Co., 273 Ky. 25, 115 S.W.2d 372; Pugh v. Tidewater Power Co., 237 N.C. 693, 75 S.E.2d 766; Littleton v. Alabama Power Co., 243 Ala. 492, 10 So.2d 757; Kedziora v. Washington Water Power Co., 193 Wash. 51, 74 P......
-
Davis v. Carolina Power & Light Co.
...over its transmission line. In consequence, the tragedy was not within the reasonable foresight of the defendant. Pugh v. Tidewater Power Co., 237 N.C. 693, 75 S.E.2d 766; Mintz v. Murphy, 235 N.C. 304, 69 S.E.2d 849; Deese v. Carolina Power & Light Co., 234 N.C. 558, 67 S.E.2d 751; Stanley......
-
Williams v. Carolina Power & Light Co.
...of law that a metal line, which came in contact with a power company's wires, would be used to fly a kite, Pugh v. Tidewater Power Co., 237 N.C. 693, 75 S.E.2d 766 (1953), or that a person would be electrocuted when he attempted to disengage electrical wires that had become tangled in a tre......
-
Brown v. Duke Power Co.
...have held that a person's contact with a power company's wires was unforeseeable as a matter of law. See, e. g., Pugh v. Tidewater Power Co., 237 N.C. 693, 75 S.E.2d 766 (1953); Deese v. Carolina Power & Light Co., 234 N.C. 558, 67 S.E.2d 751 (1951). See also Williams v. Carolina Power & Li......